During this prepared unit of study, students will be assigned to carefully
examine court records, testimonies of witnesses and court opinions in an
effort to involve them in the legal process and how it operates. They will
follow a bill from its inception
to its challenge in court, right through to the appeals stage.

This unit has challenged students to develop and use certain critical
thinking skills. Students can, if the teacher so desires, become involved
in several learning activities that will challenge them to read factual
evidence carefully and analyze this evidence in ways that will enable them
to become more coherent thinkers and writers. By debating legal issues
with their classmates, students learn to improve speaking and listening
skills, as well as small group process skills. In summary, students who
complete this unit of study will have been exposed to methods which are
intended to improve their abilities to decipher, interpret, organize and
communicate information more effectively.

In addition to skill-building, students will become familiar with
terminology relating to law and the courtroom. Students will be expected
to keep lists of vocabulary words and concepts within their groups.
Glossaries are available for them to consult. Independent research is
encouraged. The teacher hands out specific questions to answer based on
group readings to help students accurately summarize facts.

THE COURT: The court will come to order. The Reverend Cartwright will
please open court with prayer.

THE REV. CARTWRIGHT: We beseech Thee, our Heavenly Father, that Thou will
grant unto every individual that share of wisdom that will enable them to
go out from this session of the court, with the consciousness of having
under God and grace done the very best thing possible, and the wisesth
thing possible . . . Hear us in our prayers, our Father, this morning,
for the cause of truth and righteousness . . . that the affairs of church
and state may be so administered that God may beget unto Himself the
greatest degree of honor and glory.

THE COURT: Seat everyone you can, Mr. Sheriff, and those that can’t get
seats, let them stand around the wall.

THE COURT: Mr. Attorney General, come right up here, please. Let me have
my docket, Mr. Clerk. 9:22 A.M.—Mr. Attorney General I am calling the case
of the State v. John Thomas Scopes . . .

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: If the Court please, in this case we think that it
is proper that a new indictment be returned.

THE COURT: Do you want a jury empaneled?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, sir, and a new indictment.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: This indictment has been returned by agreement on both sides, but both sides are anxious that the record be kept straight and regular, and that no technical objection may be made in the appellate courts.

THE COURT: Very well . . .

THE COURT: Now let’s proceed to draw the jury, gentlemen . . .

(Grebstein, 32, 33)

Document 6: The Judge’s Charge to the Grand Jury

Gentlemen of the grand jury . . . the statute which it is
alleged that John T. Scopes violated, is Chapter 27 of the acts of 1925
which makes it unlawful to teach . . . any theory that denies the story of
divine creation of man as taught in the Bible and instead thereof that man
descended from a lower order of animals. (the judge reads Section 1 of the
Act) (the judge reads first chapter of Genesis) Therefore, the
vital question now involved for your consideration is, has the statute
been violated by the said John T. Scopes? . . .
If you find the statute has been thus violated, you should indict the
guilty person . . .
You will bear in mind that in this investigation you are not interested to inquire into the policy or wisdom of this legislation . . .
The policy and wisdom of any particular legislation addresses itself to the legislative branch of government, provided the proposed legislation is within constitutional limits.
Our constitution imposes upon the judicial branch the interpretation of statutes and upon the executive branch the enforcement of the law . . .
You may proceed with your investigation. (Grebstein, 34)

Document 7: Darrow Challenges a Jury Member

After the prospective jury member is questioned by the judge and the
Attorney General for approval, the Defense is allowed determine whether or
not the person is suitable.

Questions by Mr. Darrow:

Q: What is your business?

A: I am a minister.

Q: Where abouts?

A: I live in the second district of Rhea County, twenty miles north.

Q: Ever preach on evolution?

A: I don’t think so, definitely; that is, on evolution alone.

Q: Did you ever preach on evolution?

A: Yes. I haven’t as a subject; just taken that up; in connection with other subjects. I have referred to it in discussing it.

Q: Against it or for it?

A: I am strictly for the Bible.

Q: I am talking about evolution, I am not talking about the Bible. Did you preach for or against evolution?

A: Is that a fair question, judge?

THE COURT: Yes, answer the question.

A: Well, I preached against it, of course! (Applause)

THE COURT: Let’s have order.

MR. DARROW: Your honor, I am going to ask to have anybody excluded that applauds.

THE COURT: Yes, if you repeat that, ladies and gentlemen, you will be excluded. We cannot have applause. If you have feelings in this case you must not express them in the courtroom. If you do, I will have to exclude you.

Q: Have you formed a strong conviction against evolution?

A: Well, I have.

Q: You think you would be a fair juror in this case?

A: Well, I can take the law and the evidence in the case, I think, and try a man right . . .

Q: Have you heard of Mr. Scopes?

A: Yes, Sir; yes.

Q: You have heard that he is an evolutionist, haven’t you?

A: Yes, sir, I have heard that . . .

Q: You now have the opinion that evolution is contrary to the Bible and that my client has been teaching evolution; as you stand there now, that is your opinion?

A: Sure it is.

Q: You could change it if you heard evidence enough to change it on?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Otherwise you couldn’t?

A: I have no right to; I don’t think.

MR. DARROW: I challenge for cause.

THE COURT: Well, I want every juror to start in with an open mind. I will excuse you, Mr. Massingill.

After a total of seven additional challenges by Darrow, the Court, and the
prosecution, the jury was completed. (Grebstein, 40-42)

Document 8: The Court Questions Darrow

B: Do you
believe that the Bible is the revealed will of God, inspired and
trustworthy?

D: I think there is much of value in the Bible, but I do
not believe it is written or inspired by God. I believe it should be taken
as every other book, and that the portions in it that are sublime, like
such portions of every other great book, might be called inspired . . .

B: Do you believe in the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments?

D: I do not believe in miracles. I believe the universe acts and always has acted according to immutable law, and that whatever may be back of the universe, it has never violated these laws.

B: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?

D: I have been searching for proof of this all my life with the same desire to find it that is incident to every living thing, and I have never found any evidence on the subject. (Grebstein, 132-133)

Document 9: Quotation Sheet—Evolution and the Bible

As you read the following statements, ask yourself which of the following
might agree with each one: John Scopes, William J. Bryan, Clarence Darrow,
Judge Raulston.

1. “Evolution has no purpose; man must supply this for himself.”

2. “The Butler Act rested on the belief that truth can be determined by taking a vote.”

3. “Parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.”

4. “If I lose faith in Genesis, I’m afraid I’ll lose faith in the rest of the Bible, and if I want to commit larceny I’ll say I don’t believe in the part of the Bible that says ‘thou shalt not steal.’ The same thing applies to murder.”

5. “In a democracy issues of policy must be resolved by the elective process, not by appointive judges.”

6. “In the history of the world there has been nobody who has dealt scientifically with all questions.”

7. “Morality depends on religion. Government cannot be indifferent to religion.”

8. “Apart from human purposes, no purpose exists.”

9. “Human life is nothing without purpose. Read the Bible to determine God’s purpose for you.”

10. “Man has no real freedom of will; he is a machine; a product of heredity and environment.”